Short answer
Opening and testing, by itself, is not deductible. Going further than that can be.
"The consumer shall only be liable for any diminished value of the goods resulting from the handling of the goods other than what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods. The consumer shall in any event not be liable for diminished value of the goods where the trader has failed to provide notice of the right of withdrawal in accordance with point (h) of Article 6(1)." —
Two rules in one provision:
- The benchmark is the shop floor. The consumer may handle the goods as they could have done in a physical shop — unbox, inspect, try on, switch on. That is not deductible.
- The information sanction is absolute. If the trader did not give proper notice of the withdrawal right, there is no liability for diminished value at all, however damaged the goods.
So a deduction requires two things: handling that exceeded the shop-floor standard, and a compliant withdrawal notice.
Why testing cannot be charged for
The principle predates the current Directive. In Messner (C-489/07) the Court addressed whether a seller could claim compensation for the consumer's use of goods bought at a distance, and explained the purpose of the withdrawal right:
"The right of withdrawal is therefore intended to offset the disadvantage for the consumer resulting from a distance contract by granting him an appropriate period for reflection during which he can examine and test the goods acquired." —
It followed that charging for that examination would defeat the right:
"the efficiency and effectiveness of the right of withdrawal would be impaired if the consumer were obliged to pay compensation simply because he had examined and tested the goods acquired under a distance contract. To the extent to which the right of withdrawal is intended precisely to give the consumer that opportunity, the fact of having made use of it cannot have the consequence that the consumer is able to exercise that right only if he pays compensation." —
But the Court also drew the boundary. The Directive "is not intended to grant him rights going beyond what is necessary to allow him effectively to exercise his right of withdrawal", and does not preclude fair compensation where the consumer used the goods in a manner incompatible with principles of civil law such as good faith or unjust enrichment — provided the amount is not disproportionate to the purchase price and the burden of proof is not placed on the consumer.
Article 14(2) codifies that balance.
Applying the shop-floor test
The test is what the consumer could have done in a physical shop with the same product.
Generally not deductible:
- Removing outer packaging and taking the item out of the box.
- Trying on clothing or shoes over other clothing, indoors.
- Switching on an appliance or device to confirm it works.
- Inspecting, handling and examining the item.
- Reading a manual, checking dimensions, comparing colours.
Potentially deductible:
- Wearing shoes outdoors so the soles are scuffed.
- Installing software or pairing a device in a way that cannot be reset.
- Removing security tags or permanent labels.
- Using a cosmetic or consumable so a quantity is gone.
- Assembling furniture beyond what was needed to inspect it, causing damage.
- Scratching, staining or otherwise damaging the item.
The line is activity that moves from evaluation to use.
Quantifying the deduction
Article 14(2) speaks of "diminished value", which is the reduction in the goods' value — not the trader's costs.
That excludes:
- Restocking or handling fees. Not a diminution in the goods' value.
- The cost of repackaging. Administrative, not value-based.
- A flat percentage applied to all opened returns. Messner warns against disproportionate compensation, and a blanket percentage is not an assessment of diminished value.
The realistic measure is the difference between the item's value as new and its resale value in its returned condition — for example the discount at which it must be sold as "open box".
Article 14(5) confirms the closed list of permitted consumer liabilities:
"Except as provided for in Article 13(2) and in this Article, the consumer shall not incur any liability as a consequence of the exercise of the right of withdrawal." —
Messner also indicates that the burden should not fall on the consumer to prove they did not over-handle the goods. In practice the trader should be able to evidence the condition on receipt — photographs, inspection notes, dated records — and explain the valuation.
The notice sanction
The second sentence of Article 14(2) is absolute and often overlooked. Where the trader failed to provide notice of the withdrawal right in accordance with Article 6(1)(h), the consumer "shall in any event not be liable for diminished value".
There is no proportionality qualifier. A trader that omitted or botched the withdrawal notice cannot deduct anything for diminished value, even for goods returned visibly damaged.
Article 6(4) provides the safe harbour: supplying the Annex I(A) model instructions on withdrawal, correctly filled in, satisfies Article 6(1) points (h), (i) and (j). Article 6(9) places the burden of proving compliance on the trader.
This interacts with Article 10. A missing withdrawal notice extends the withdrawal period to twelve months and 14 days and removes the diminished-value deduction. The same defect produces both consequences.
Where the deduction question does not arise
Sealed hygiene goods and sealed media. Article 16(e) removes the withdrawal right for sealed goods not suitable for return for health protection or hygiene reasons which were unsealed after delivery. Article 16(i) does the same for sealed audio or video recordings or sealed computer software unsealed after delivery. Where the exception applies there is no withdrawal, so no refund and no deduction.
Custom or personalised goods. Article 16(c) removes the right for goods made to the consumer's specifications or clearly personalised.
Digital content. Article 16(m) removes the right where performance has begun with prior express consent, acknowledgement of loss of the right, and the trader's confirmation.
Defective goods. The consumer is exercising conformity rights under the Sale of Goods Directive 2019/771, not withdrawing. Diminished value is irrelevant.
Practical guidance for traders
- Do not deduct for opening, unboxing or testing.
- Assess each return individually; abandon flat percentages.
- Document condition on receipt with photographs and dated notes.
- Base the deduction on resale value, not on internal costs.
- Verify that the Article 6(1)(h) notice was actually given before deducting anything.
- Tell the consumer the amount deducted and the reason, and keep the underlying evidence.
- Keep the diminished-value path separate from the faulty-goods path.
- Where a product is genuinely unsuitable for return once opened, consider whether it falls within Article 16(e) or (i) and seal it accordingly, rather than relying on deductions.
Practical guidance for consumers
- You may examine and test goods as you could in a shop.
- Keep packaging where practical; it helps, though its absence is not automatically a deduction.
- Avoid outdoor or sustained use of items you may return.
- If a deduction is made, ask for the basis of the valuation.
- If the trader never told you about the withdrawal right, no diminished-value deduction is permitted at all.
Conclusion
The rule is not "opened means charged". Article 14(2) permits a deduction only where the consumer's handling went beyond establishing the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods — the shop-floor standard — and only where the trader gave proper withdrawal notice.
Messner explains why: a right of withdrawal that could only be exercised on payment for having examined the goods would not be much of a right. Traders who deduct by default, or by flat percentage, are usually deducting for something Article 14(2) does not reach. And a trader whose withdrawal notice was defective has no deduction available at all.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.